Skip to main content

State v. Ryan

Citations

  • 261 P.3d 1189
  • 350 Or. 670
  • 2011 Ore. LEXIS 710

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that a speech-based violation of an SPO need not meet the Rangel standard in order to qualify for criminal prosecution because “[t]he restriction on [the] defendant’s speech rights occurred (if at all
  • “[B]ecause defendant’s communications with the victim were already prohibited by the stalking protective order, the state was not required by Article I, section 8, to prove under ORS 163.750 that defendant had communicated an unequivocal threat to the victim.”
  • “ORS 163.750 does not reach any speech not otherwise prohibited by the concededly lawful order. Therefore, a defendant who seeks to challenge a conviction under ORS 163.750 on free speech grounds first must successfully attack the underlying stalking protective order”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Muniz, Kistler, De Muniz, Ristler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.